Boy Scouts of America force Hacker Scouts to change its name

BSA sent second letter to the Hacker Scouts saying that “scouts” is trademarked.

In August, a small Oakland-based kids’ group called the Hacker Scouts received a letter from none other than the Boy Scouts of America. The letter insisted—to the group leaders’ disbelief—that the term “scouts” is trademarked to the BSA via a 1919 Congressional charter (the charter extends to select other groups, like the Girl Scouts, as well). The BSA demanded that Hacker Scouts change its name or face legal ramifications.

At the time, Hacker Scouts said it would decide how to respond “based on advice from our lawyers and our own sense of duty.”

But last week, the BSA sent a second letter to the Hacker Scouts leaders. As Hacker Scouts cofounder Samantha Matalone Cook wrote on the group’s site: “[W]e have received another letter from the BSA refusing to compromise or consider a licensing agreement and reaffirming their demand that we change our name or they will take legal action.”

As Hacker Scouts Director of Guild Development and co-founder Garratt Gallagher told Ars in an e-mail, the group has decided to change its name rather than face litigation. “Hacker Scouts is focusing its efforts on its primary mission: educating kids,” wrote Gallagher.

Ars contacted the BSA but has not yet received a reply.

In Cook’s post, she acknowledged that the group’s decision was far from perfect:

We know this will disappoint some of you. We know some of you wanted us to fight this. We don't blame you. We had those same feelings. But our job is to keep our organization focused on its mission. Our job is to make this kind of education as accessible and affordable to as many kids as we can. It came down to how does this further our goals and objectives? And it doesn't.

The group formerly known as Hacker Scouts has not picked a new name yet. But the rebranding hasn’t stymied the group so far; as Gallagher wrote in an e-mail to Ars, the scouts are adding several new badges, including "Fire Safety, Pyrotechnics, and 4 space-related badges” and are establishing a national headquarters office in Oakland.

I don't understand why BSA is being so maligned for this. Our trademark system allows the trademarking of common words to represent specific products or groups (e.g. Microsoft "Windows", Google "Chrome").

If BSA has trademarked "Scouts" for a particular type of organization, and there's an organization that calls itself "Hacker Scouts" and even has merit badges, doesn't BSA have a reasonable case?

A completely unassociated, kid focused organization that teaches valuable lessons to youth and rewards them with badges for completing various tasks associated with that learning process and has "Scouts" in the name?

There's no helping it. US law requires that if you own a trademark, you are obligated to protect it. If they didn't do this, they ran the risk of having their trademark invalidated. In this case, US law is to blame.

There's no helping it. US law requires that if you own a trademark, you are obligated to protect it. If they didn't do this, they ran the risk of having their trademark invalidated. In this case, US law is to blame.

Not with a licensing arrangement, which The Group Formerly Known as Hacker Scouts tried to negotiate. (At least, so says the article.)

Former boy scout. The boy scouts are dead, scouting is dead. They killed it when I was a kid and we had to start praying at meetings. Our old scoutmaster passed away and outside influence brought in a new scoutmaster not even from our troop's technical boundaries. Fuck that guy, most of us quit in protest and a gay former scout leader stopped volunteering tons of his time, which meant that all the other volunteers left because he was the cornerstone.

I don't understand why BSA is being so maligned for this. Our trademark system allows the trademarking of common words to represent specific products or groups (e.g. Microsoft "Windows", Google "Chrome").

If BSA has trademarked "Scouts" for a particular type of organization, and there's an organization that calls itself "Hacker Scouts" and even has merit badges, doesn't BSA have a reasonable case?

I think there's a fair chance those maligning the BSA are maligning them in general for their behavior over many years, and this case provides focus for that.

I don't understand why BSA is being so maligned for this. Our trademark system allows the trademarking of common words to represent specific products or groups (e.g. Microsoft "Windows", Google "Chrome").

If BSA has trademarked "Scouts" for a particular type of organization, and there's an organization that calls itself "Hacker Scouts" and even has merit badges, doesn't BSA have a reasonable case?

I think there's a fair chance those maligning the BSA are maligning them in general for their behavior over many years, and this case provides focus for that.

This is probably true; but it isn't mere coincidence/attack of convenience stuff: One of the main drivers of interest in non-BSA 'scout' organizations is the fact that the BSA (with varying degrees of adherence by local personnel) combines its desirable features with a raging case of, um, 'socially retrograde' positions.

So, if you want your mixture-of-youth-activities; but don't fancy learning about your 'Duty To God', partaking of the quaint nationalism that made 20th century Europe so picturesque, and keeping the place strictly homo-free, you need to look elsewhere. That makes the BSA's shoving around of 'elsewhere' look particularly petty.

Another demonstration of ignorance re: the term 'tolerance.' And, by the way, down-voting an idiotic and thoughtless post is most certainly not a form of intolerance. ('Impatience' I will grant you--some of us may be losing patience.)

Your defiance of liberal fascism is heroic and all; but your point is utter nonsense: "Tolerance" doesn't imply respect, agreement, polite silence, etc. It just means putting up with somebody or something rather than applying force.

Which is exactly the treatment the BSA receives: people who disagree with them(inside or outside the organization) have expressed that fact, and some even no longer provide them with support; but they have been suffered to continue doing whatever they think best, according to their internal policy-making processes, without outside coercion. Tolerated.

Oh sure. Because freeing the slaves, giving women right to vote, instituting social security, assuring human rights for everyone, gay rights, religious freedoms to have no religion at all, and protecting our planetary habitat from CO2 pollution, are a fair and just left vs right debate in which there is no clear morally superior vs morally bankrupt position. /s

This is just a matter of a large organization with a lot of money bullying a smaller one with spurious copyright claims because they can't afford to fight it.

And no "Scouts" is not copyrightable as it is a dictionary word that was used for hundreds of years before the BSA was founded.

You should read a little bit about the trademark battle between Apple Computer and Apple Records. Then check the difference between "copyright" and "trademark," and perhaps read some of the earlier comments.

And no "Scouts" is not copyrightable as it is a dictionary word that was used for hundreds of years before the BSA was founded.

As mentioned in other posts, "Windows" was probably used for a few years before Microsoft came along."Mustang" may have been in a dictionary or two before Ford decided to make the car.But thanks for the mis-information, It has contributed to the discussion greatly.